I don't know how much evidence there is of Jesus being an anarchist.
I didn't say Jesus was an anarchist, but he's
more of an anarchist than current Republicans and Democrats by a long shot. Throughout his entire ministry he refused to take positions of power, and told his disciples not to take positions of power either. He specifically told his followers that they were not to rule by exercising authority over other people:
But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” - Matthew 20:25-28, Mark 10:41-45, Luke 22:24-27
They came to Capernaum. When he was in the house, he asked them, “What were you arguing about on the road?” But they kept quiet because on the way they had argued about who was the greatest. Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, “Anyone who wants to be first must be the very last, and the servant of all.” - Mark 9:33-35, Matthew 18:1-4
"But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ. The greatest among you shall be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted." - Matthew 23:8-12
An argument started among the disciples as to which of them would be the greatest. Jesus, knowing their thoughts, took a little child and had him stand beside him. Then he said to them, “Whoever welcomes this little child in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. For it is the one who is least among you all who is the greatest.” - Luke 9:46-48
When the people saw the sign that he had done, they said, “This is indeed the Prophet who is to come into the world!” Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the mountain by himself. - John 6:14-15
He also said "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's." His beef with the establishment seemed more to be with their corruption (the cleansing of the temple) rather than their very existence.
Sadly that passage has been misused over history due to the fact that we've lost track of the historical context. This is the actual passage:
But he perceived their craftiness and said to them, “Show me a denarius. Whose head and whose title does it bear?” They said, “Caesar’s.” He said to them, “Then give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.” And they were not able in the presence of the people to trap him by what he said, and being amazed by his answer they became silent.
N.T. Wright has a strong background of the entire passage that's worth reading in detail, but the first key point is that Jesus specifically asks for a coin and its picture and the inscription for a reason. First, he was proving that the Pharisees were carrying the Roman money on them. Second, he was calling attention to the image and inscription on the coin, both of which strict Jews considered blasphemous. The inscription read, "
Tiberius Caesar Augustus, son of divine Augustus" so it was literally giving tribute to a false god and showing an image that Pharisees considered idolatrous. Jesus was proving to the crowd that these Pharisees attempting to trap him were hypocrites and had already compromised themselves and their claims even by carrying the empire's idolatrous money. (FWIW, off the top of my head I don't believe there's any point in the gospels where Jesus is ever described as handling money. When the question of the temple tax comes in Matthew 17, Jesus has no coins, but tells Peter to find the coin for the tax in a fish's mouth. He also repeatedly tells his followers to get rid of their money.) On of top of that, the logic of the mainstream interpretation is ridiculous - Jesus would never say, "Well, some things are for God and other things are for Caesar." Jesus makes clear in every part of his ministry that ALL things are for God, life isn't compromised.
The primary point of the passage isn't to say, "Obey the empire", the primary point of the passage was to say, "You all have already compromised yourselves with the empire, we're going to follow after the things of God." That's why the Pharisees were so amazed by his answer and fell emasculated in front of the people.
His beef with the establishment seemed more to be with their corruption (the cleansing of the temple) rather than their very existence.
Jesus never says, "Overthrow the rulers", but his beef with how people wielded power went far beyond corruption alone. Besides the passages I shared above telling his followers to be servants and not rulers, there isn't a single word from Jesus that suggests he ever wanted those who followed him to become part of any power structure. If he had, wouldn't he have instructed them on how to wield power in such a situation? Yet there's not a word of that anywhere in the Gospels outside of "It shall not be so among you."
The poster I was responded to claimed, "A strong leader backed by the people is the only way to fend off oligarchic exploitation," then cited Jesus as an example. But while Jesus exhibited a form of strength for sure, he also exhibited the very opposite of authoritarianism, and at no point attempted to be the head of a political movement. I could also go into quite a bit of detail regarding Jesus's strong position of nonviolence, which is untenable for authoritarian rule.